THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.2. Neo-humanism in context
46 | P a g e humanism, it is necessary to contextualise it against the generally understood Western ideology of Humanism.
47 | P a g e Hindu-Buddhism which is much more indeterminate and open to multiple interpretations and practices.
In the context of education, Bussey (2010) refers to Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s criticism of the totalitarian and hegemonic approach to learning and knowledge production in the West – referred to as geophilosophy. Neo-humanism, on the other hand is characterised by various possibilities, fluidity, responsiveness and multiple narratives. A comparison between two iconic forms of humanity in context, namely, the Vitruvian man and the Indian Nataraj, graphically illustrate these contrary interpretations between the West and the East (Figures 3.0.a & 3.0.b).
While the former represents taxonomy and harmony in an ordered universe as evident in symmetry, balance, stability and order, the Nataraj represents a world of multiple meanings, contexts and forms, wherein order is contingent and bound by chaos and possibilities (Bussey 2010). Sarkar (1998) refers to the departure from the definitive mind-set of Humanism to the process oriented ideology of Neo-humanism as a new dawn in the evolution of consciousness brought about by a new Renaissance. This new Renaissance is interpreted by American pedagogue Sandy Grande (in Bussey 2010) in her argument that no theory can, or should be everything to all peoples and that, differences in material domains necessitate differences in
Figure 3.0.a. The Vitruvian Man Figure 3.0.b. The Nataraj
48 | P a g e discursive fields. Neo-humanism therefore assumes the position of a layered philosophy, a form of pragmatism with a distinctive epistemology and evolutionary ontology (Bussey 2010).
The new Renaissance as promulgated by Neo-humanism fundamentally differs from the European Renaissance albeit that they both evoke new modes of learning. While the European Renaissance comprised seven liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry, arithmetic, music and astronomy, the new Renaissance of Neo-humanism focuses on seven liberating rationalities: service, empiricism, character development, ethics, aesthetic science, universalism and spiritual practice (Bussey 2010). Therefore, while Humanism remained an intellectual movement which sought social order through theoretic process, Neo-humanism is characterised as a pragmatic movement that focuses on construction of reality through the balance of physical, intellectual and spiritual activity. Sarkar (1998) referred to spirituality as not a utopian ideal but rather a practical philosophy. Within the process of architectural creation, spirituality takes on multiple meanings to include the intuitive / meditative to the connection of the self with the greater inclusive context of creativity - a synergy between unit consciousness of person and the collective consciousness of society. Neo-humanist education therefore situates learning firmly in local context while at the same time maintaining a higher spiritual purpose free of socio-sentiment and geo-sentiment.
Education and practice, within a neo-humanist paradigm, may become engaged with context in its multiplicity through layered modes of deep and broad thinking about existence and co- existence. Within this existential reality, many diverse and complex realities emerge, wherein hybrid responses and new possibilities for education could appear. The consideration of multiple realities through layered thinking translates into engaged practice as a rational synthesis of multiple realities – wherein disciplinary silos cannot exist. Within the Neo- humanist paradigm, education can never be limited to the service of industry. Humanity and the advancement of human potentialities and the consequent advancement of society are instead, the underlying principles.
The neo-humanist approach of inclusivity of multiple perspectives, complexity and diversity gives rise to the concepts of hybridity and ‘interdisciplinarity’ in pedagogy, which stimulates the critical enquiry of theories and the development of ideas and concepts in an “in-between”
or hybrid space. Hybrid interdisciplinary space fosters collaboration beyond the dualistic interplay of disciplinary silos and binary opposites which, according to Bhabha (in Menin 2003), are often regarded as mutually exclusive in Western ideology, which tends toward
49 | P a g e positivist ideologies of control and boundary protectionism. Within such interdisciplinary paradigm, opposites may synthesise to create new meanings of greater significance with multiple narratives whereby value is established through subjective interpretation.
This leads the discussion to the relationship between the concept of ‘interdisciplinarity’ and its application to the development of multi-cultural identities. “Interdisciplinarity’ by its nature, exists in “in-between” space known as ‘hybrid’ space. Homi Bhabha refers to ‘hybridity’ as a key concept of post-colonial theory, which is a cultural phenomenon that advocates the inclusive and meaningful connections between different cultures. Bhabha suggests that this opens up a space for translation – a place of hybridity (Menin 2003). This interdisciplinary hybrid space is what Bhabha refers to as the “third space”. Hulme et al. (2009) refer to Bhabha’s third space theory and hybridity as a theoretical basis wherefrom professional cultural knowledge can be explored. This, according to Bhabha is vital in developing trans- professional knowledge in an attempt to make connections between dislocated experiences and practices. Bhabha (in Hulme et al. 2009) refers to the third space as a place for radical openness and hybridity, a critique of colonial and post-colonial discourse which focuses on surveillance and containment, also referred to as ‘silos’, which are disciplinarily disconnected.
The surveillance of disciplinary domains is resistant to the incorporation of difference in whatever form that it may present, which includes, cultural difference and professional difference. Bhabha (in Easthope 1998) implicitly refers to Derrida in relating hybridity and the concept of the third space as a space of translation, to Derridean difference. Bhabha posits that colonialism is ambivalent in that while it may appear original and authoritative; its articulation is based on repetition and difference (Bhabha in Easthope 1998). Difference, according to Derrida is enacted by the deferral of meaning in time and differentiation of meaning in space (Easthope 1998). Bhabha uses the term “interstices” to explain spatial differentiation, which defines “in-between” spaces wherein domains of difference overlap, wherefrom new hybrid spaces emerge and wherein meaning may be interpreted through various subjective interpolations of multiple cultures and professions.
Jane Rendell (2006) refers to ‘in-between’ spaces, arguing that interdisciplinary space exists as the place between art, architecture and critical theory. Such collaborative “thinking between”
questions what is generally taken for granted, such as the methodologies, the way we do things and terminologies (Rendell 2006). In this context, there is no place for the habitual perpetuation of historic theories, methods and processes. Within “in-between” critical space, nothing can be
50 | P a g e taken for granted, as relevance has to be constantly interrogated and methods constantly rethought in order to be meaningful and responsive to context. This process requires constant reflection and constant revision – it is a dynamic process. Rendell notes that critical theorists offer self-reflective modes of thought that seek to change the world in which the inequalities of market capitalism, patriarchal and colonial interests continue to dominate. Rendell’s argument touches on issues of transformation and challenges the positivist paradigm which dominates theory and thinking. Furthermore, her interpretation of interdisciplinary space challenges the hegemonies and traditional canons of architectural education. “Thinking between…” what is, and has been taken for granted, forms the basis of the transformation agenda in architecture. Such an agenda is informed by critical thinking and questioning why things exists the way they do, interrogating ontology and epistemologies against societal realities, within a transformative pedagogical paradigm. The intention of transformative pedagogy overlaps with the ideological aspiration of neo-humanist futures as both are pragmatic approaches to social processes, characterised by trans-, or even post-disciplinararity;
the linking of local and global; self and society; inner and outer, in what is referred to as a transformative praxis (Bussey 2008). This poses a necessary challenge to the predominant pedagogic and practice approaches which are designed for the primary benefit of industry.
Architecture is by nature, however, a manifestation of a social process of intra-, and inter- personal personal engagement, combining inner and outer realities, closely related to contextual complexity and diversity within a responsive system of synthetic rationality.
However, the reality of the modern world, defined by an overt focus on industry and product, has negatively affected architectural practice, which has resulted in its gradual disconnection from the complex social paradigm into the realm of objective production and “creative silos”.
This scenario has made it necessary to look into the historic evolution of architectural education and training to understand the reasons for such disconnection in order to find alternatives that may contribute to the development of the new model for universities of technology.
51 | P a g e